*E491 
•41  n 


THRUSTON 

NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE 
TWO  ARMIES  IN  THE  CIVIL  WAR 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


The  Numbers  and  Rosters  of 

the  Two  Armies  in  the 

Civil  War 


BY   GEN.    GATES   P.    THRUSTON 

OF   NASHVILLE,  TENN. 


The  Numbers  and  Rosters  of  the 

Two  Armies  in  the 

Civil  War 


GEN.  GATES  P.  THRUSTON 

OF  NASHVILLE,   TENN. 


The  Numbers  and  Rosters  of  the  Two 
Armies  in  the  Civil  War/ 

(This  article  reprinted  from  The  Olympian  Magazine) 


In  this  new  era  of  universal  devo- 
tion to  the  interests  of  our  country, 
I  am  reluctant  to  revive  the  con- 
troversies of  the  past  or  to  recall  the 
victories  or  defeats  of  the  Civil  War. 
There  is  a  subject,  however,  that  has 
not  received  the  attention  from  our 
military  critics  and  writer?  at  the 
North  or  South  which  its  importance 
merits.  I  shall  take  the  liberty,  there- 
fore, of  considering  briefly  The  Num- 
bers and  Rosters  of  the  two  Armies  in 
the  Civil  War. 

The  veterans  of  the  Civil  War, 
Federal  and  Confederate,  are  com- 
mending our  able  Secretary  of  War 
for  his  efforts  to  obtain  the  names, 
numbers,  and  full  enrollment  of  the 
soldiers  of  the  Confederacy.  These 
records  are  necessary  to  complete  the 
official  history  of  the  war,  and  to  give 
just  recognition  to  the  American  sol- 
diers of  the  South. 

We  have  had  very  meager  and  in- 
definite figures  by  which  to  compare 
the  number  of  enlistments  and  the 
magnitude  of  the  two  armies,  Federal 
and  Confederate,  in  the  great  conflict. 
Unfavorable  comparisons  and  con- 
trasts are  frequently  suggested  as  to 
the  number  of  soldiers  engaged  upon 
each  side,  but  I  believe  when  the  offi- 
cial rolls  and  figures  are  placed  on  the 
same  basis  and  finally  reported  and 
compared,  there  will  be  no  room  for 
contrasting  criticism  as  to  the  mag- 
nitude of  the  two  armies,  or  as  to  the 


courage,  the  prowess,  or  generalship 
of  the  American  soldiers  from  the 
North  or  the  South. 

Fortunately  the  names  and  full  en- 
rollment of  the  union  forces  are  .com- 
plete. The  official  figures,  embracing 
the  entire  rolls,  the  enlistments  and  re- 
enlistments  for  long  and  short  terms 
of  service,  the  one  hundred  days'  men, 
three  months'  men,  the  ninety  days' 
men,  the  veteran  reserve,  the  home 
guards,  the  colored  troops,  amount  to 
the  large  aggregate  enrollment  of 
2,778,304  men.  This  large  total  re- 
duced to  the  basis  of  a  full  term  en- 
listment for  the  war  would  probably 
cut  down  the  aggregate  number  to 
about  1,700,000  men. 

The  absence  of  systematic  records 
of  the  Confederate  forces,  the  loss  or 
destruction  of  official  papers,  during 
the  evacuation  of  Richmond,  and  dur- 
ing the  chaos  of  the  reconstruction 
period,  has  left  no  definite  summary 
nor  figures  by  which  the  total  enroll- 
ment of  the  armies  and  detached 
forces  of  the  Confederacy  can  be  ac- 
curately estimated. 

In  1869,  soon  after  the  Civil  War, 
and  during  the  era  of  prejudice  that 
naturally  succeeded,  Dr.  Joseph  Jones, 
an  ex-Confederate  surgeon,  Secretary 
of  the  Southern  Historical  Society  at 
New  Oreleans,  prepared  a  paper  upon 
the  "Confederate  Losses  During  the 
War."  In  this  paper  he  stated  that 
"the  available  Confederate  force,  ca- 


*This  article,  reprinted  from  The  Olympian  magazine  of  November,  1903,  published  at 
Nashville,  Tenn.,  contains  the  main  portion  of  an  address  delivered  by  Gen.  G.  P.  Thrus- 
tonfibefore  the  Society  of  the  Army  of  the  Cumberland  in  Washington,  D.  C.,  October  14. 
1903,  the  advance  sheets  having  been  furnished  The  Olympian  by  the  author. 


460032 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


pable  of  active  service  in  the  field,  did 
not  during  the  entire  war  exceed  six 
hundred  thousand  men."  I  quote 
from  his  brief  paper  It  contains  no 
statistics  nor  special  grounds  for  his 
estimate  of  the  number  of  forces.  Dr. 
Jones  states  that  his  "calculation  is 
given  only  as  an  approximation." 

The  official  papers  of  the  Confede- 
rate War  Department,  including  the 
incomplete  army  rolls,  had  been  cap- 
tured at  the  close  of  the  war,  and  were 
stored  in  the  War  Department  at 
Washington,  and,  therefore,  I  do  not 
think  Dr.  Jones'  estimate  from  mem- 
ory or  unofficial  data  can  be  relied 
upon  as  accurate.  "Available  force" 
is  a  very  indefinite  and  confusing 
term.  We  would  usually  interpret  it 
as  the  efficient  field  force  or  fighting 
strength  of  an  army.  It  does  not 
generally  constitute  more  than  about 
sixty  or  sixty-five  per  cent,  of  the  full 
army  enrollment.  There  may  have 
been  a  million  enlistments  on  the  origi- 
nal Confederate  rolls,  during  the  four 
years  of  the  war,  including  re-enlist- 
ments and  transfers,  and  men  on  post 
or  detached  and  temporary  duty,  or 
home  guards,  veteran  or  invalid  sol- 
diers guarding  forts,  or  enlisted  de- 
serters (who  are  counted  on  the  Fed- 
eral rolls),  and  yet  out  of  this  whole 
number,  the  available  force  capable  of 
active  service  in  the  field  may  not  have 
been  over  600,000  soldiers.  The  aver- 
age effective  strength  of  the  Federal 
army  during  the  Civil  War  was  sixty- 
five  per  cent,  of  its  enrollment.  In  the 
same  proportion  "an  available  force" 
of  600,000  Confederates  would  repre- 
sent on  enrollment  of  nearly  a  million 
men,  or  to  be  exact,  923,076. 

Dr.  Jones'  "approximate"  estimate 
was  published  in  the  Southern  Histor- 
ical Society  papers,  and  later  his 
figures  were  republished  in  various 
forms  throughout  the  South.  Un- 


fortunately his  statement  that  the 
"available  force  in  the  field,  capable 
of  active  service  amounted  to  600,000 
men"  was  quoted  and  requoted  from 
time  to  time,  until,  by  some  process 
of  evolution,  it  was  later  regarded  as 
an  official  statement  of  the  entire  en- 
listed forces  of  the  Southern  Army  of 
all  classes  and  duties,  and  it  is  now 
quite  generally  accepted  at  the  South 
as  the  aggregate  of  the  enrolled  forces 
of  the  Confederacy. 

Dr.  Jones'  600,000  estimate  is  en- 
graved upon  enduring  monuments  in 
the  South,  commemorating  the  Con- 
federacy, in  contrast  with  the  engraved 
figures  of  the  large  official  Federal  en- 
rollment. The  contrasting  figures  are 
printed  upon  the  certificates  of  mem- 
bership in  the  Confederate  socie- 
ties. The  Southern  orators  usually  re- 
peat the  contrasting  numbers  at  meet- 
ings and  dedications  in  honor  of  the 
Confederate  soldier.  They  are  printed 
in  the  Southern  school  books,  and  thus 
a  misleading  historical  error  in  figures, 
as  I  believe,  originally  possibly  a 
just  "approximate  calculation"  of  the 
available  force  of  the  Confederacy, 
has  been  repeated,  until  its  original 
significance  and  meaning  have  been 
changed  and  forgotten ;  and  this 
mainly  from  lack  of  the  full  Confed- 
erate rolls  and  of  definite  information 
upon  the  subject,  and  usually  with 
no  intention  to  misrepresent  the  facts. 

It  was  not  the  special  duty  of  any 
Southern  Governor,  or  Confederate 
veteran,  to  worry  through  the  haystack 
of  Confederate  army  rolls  to  find  the 
exact  number  of  the  total  enlistments. 
The  majority  of  the  Southern  veterans 
are  too  busy  with  the  earnest  things  of 
life  to  bother  with  the  statistics  of  the 
Civil  War,  and  the  camp  fire  or  biv- 
ouac regulars  who,  after  the  manner 
of  our  Northern  Grand  Army  posts, 
usually  administer  upon  the  military 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


affairs  of  the  Confederacy  at  the 
South,  were  quite  content  with  Dr. 
Jones'  estimate  of  600,000.  Why 
should  they  not  be?  It  is  certainly 
small  enough ! 

The  main  material  is  in  the  War 
Department  at  Washington.  The 
carpet-baggers  had  also  camped  in 
several  of  the  Southern  capitol  build- 
ings, and  perhaps  had  lighted  their 
pipes  and  kindled  the  fires  with  the 
army  rolls.  Occasionally  some  thought- 
ful Confederate  has  urged  in  the  South- 
ern papers  that  the  accepted  estimate 
of  Confederate  forces  was  much  too 
small,  but  the  protests  have  made 
very  little  impression.  No  salary  was 
waiting  for  the  industrious  historical 
pioneer  who  might  investigate  and 
work  up  a  reliable  summary  of  the 
rolls.  It  was  in  fact  a  convenient 
temptation  to  accept  Dr.  Jones'  "ap- 
proximate calculation"  as  the  true 
history  and  number  of  the  entire  en- 
rollment. Dr.  Jones  was  a  most  ex- 
cellent gentleman  and  an  accom- 
plished physician.  I  knew  him  per- 
sonally. Six  hundred  thousand  in 
round  numbers  sounded  well.  The 
very  figures  suggested  the  immortal 
six  hundred  of  Balaklava.  They  were 
enshrined  in  poetry  and  printed  in 
eloquent  prose,  and  thus  those  ancient 
figures  of  Dr.  Jones  and  this  chronic 
and  misleading  historical  error,  as  I 
believe  it  to  be.  have  drifted  down  to 
our  time  without  serious  investigation 
or  contradiction,  and  as  I  have  stated, 
mainly  from  lack  of  exact  and  definite 
information,  and  usually  with  no  in- 
tention to  misrepresent  the  facts. 

I  desire  to  present  a  brief  analysis 
of  the  figures  representing  the  enroll- 
ments and  actual  strength  of  the  two 
armies.  Confederate  and  Federal,  in 
the  Civil  War,  and  some  reflections 
regarding  them,  with  the  view  of  cor- 
recting, to  some  extent,  at  least,  this 


widely  spread  misapprehension  as  to 
the  600,000  estimate,  and  to  give  a 
more  just  impression  of  the  actual 
fighting  strength  upon  each  side.  I 
trust  I  may  be  able  to  discuss  the  sub- 
ject impartially  and  without  partisan 
spirit.  The  truth,  I  am  sure,  will  leave 
no  grounds  for  unfavorable  comment 
or  comparison,  as  to  the  military 
record  upon  either  side. 

The  time  has  come  when  the  veter- 
ans of  both  armies  desire  to  know  the 
truth,  the  whole  truth,  unbiased  by 
sentiment  or  prejudice.  The  sincere 
purposes,  the  patriotic  aspirations,  and 
the  honorable  and  indeed  brilliant 
record  of  the  Confederate  soldier  have 
long  since  been  crystallized  into  his- 
tory, and  no  presentation  of  the  facts 
can  detract  from  the  laurels  he  has 
won.  His  enduring  courage  and  man- 
hood through  the  years  of  the  great 
conflict  stand  clear  above  the  collapse 
at  Appomattox  and  have  survived 
after  the  war  in  a  citizenship  of 
which  any  nation  might  be  proud. 
His  sons  shared  with  our  sons  the 
new  honors  of  the  Spanish  War  in 
loyal  devotion  to  our  united  country. 
The  heroism  of  the  American  soldiers 
on  both  sides  of  the  great  struggle 
will  continue  to  challenge  the  admira- 
tion of  the  student  of  history  as  long 
as  the  story  is  told. 

We  shall  not  be  able  to  know  the 
total  enrollment  of  the  soldiers  of  the 
Confederacy  until  Secretary  Root's 
investigations  are  completed,  and  the 
final  reports  are  received  from  the 
Southern  States  (and  it  may  be  years 
before  final  and  satisfactory  results 
are  reached),  but  for  some  time  past 
we  have  had  approximate  informa- 
tion and  figures  that  I  think  readily 
establish  the  fact  that  the  estimate  of 
an  "available  force  of  600,000  sol- 
diers" does  not  represent  much  more 
than  half  of  the  enlistments,  and  re- 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


enlistments,  and  transfers,  and  enroll- 
ments of  Confederate  soldiers  during 
the  four  years  of  the  war,  which  must 
have  aggregated  in  numbers  at  least 
a  million  men. 

It  is,  therefore,  manifestly  unjust  to 
set  up  in  contrasting  figures  the  full 
official  Federal  enlistment  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  "available  force  in  the 
field"  estimate  of  1869,  on  the  other 
side,  as  history  or  true  history.  They 
represent  two  entirely  different  stand- 
ards of  estimation  that  are  confusing. 

This  method  of  calculation  and  crit- 
icism is  a  relic  of  the  war  and  of  the 
days  when  we  were  all  partisans.  It 
is  one  of  the  myths  of  that  unhappy 
era  that  has  outlived  its  day  and  gen- 
eration. If  practical  and  useful  re- 
sults are  to  be  reached,  the  two  full 
enrollments,  or  rosters  of  enlistments, 
Federal  and  Confederate,  should  be 
placed  upon  the  same  basis  and  com- 
pared and  contrasted,  and  I  am  satis- 
fied that  neither  side  will  suffer  by  this 
just  method  of  comparison. 

Upon  making  some  investigation  as 
to  the  approximate  numbers  of  the 
Confederate  enrollment,  I  find  that  the 
State  of  North  Carolina  some  time 
since  printed  the  rolls  of  its  Confede- 
rate soldiers,  aggregating  about  125,- 
000  men.  A  more  recent  summary  in- 
creases the  number  to  127,000.  The 
State  of  Tennessee  has  long  claimed 
and  fairly  established  the  fact  that  she 
sent  115,000  soldiers  into  the  Southern 
armies,  besides  her  contribution  to  the 
Union  forces.  At  the  dedication  of  the 
battlefield  of  Chickamauga,  Governor 
Gates,  of  the  State  of  Alabama,  in 
his  admirable  address,  reported  that 
Alabama  had  furnished  100,000  sol- 
diers to  the  Confederacy,  a  larger  pro- 
portion than  I  have  assigned  to  Ten- 
nessee. Mississippi  by  a  quite  gener- 
ally accepted  computation  furnished 
85,000. 


By  these  estimates  the  enlistments 
or  enrollments  of  these  four  States  ag- 
gregate 427,000  soldiers.  Virginia, 
according  to  the  official  reports,  sent 
twelve  or  fourteen  more  regiments 
into  the  war  than  North  Carolina,  or 
their  equivalent  in  battalions  and  com- 
panies, and  the  State  of  Georgia  a 
number  of  regiments  more.  A  pro- 
portionate increase  in  the  enlistments 
in  Virginia  and  Georgia  would  credit 
Virginia  with  an  enrollment  of  about 
150,000,  and  Georgia  with  about  125,- 
000  or  130,000. 

These  six  of  the  eleven  seceding 
States,  by  this  estimate,  seem  to  have 
furnished  over  700,000  Confederate 
soldiers,  or  enlistments  to  that  number. 
The  remaining  five  seceding  States, 
including  the  large  States  of  Texas, 
Louisiana,  and  Arkansas,  according  to 
the  census  of  1860-61,  giving  the  num- 
ber of  men  of  military  age  in  them, 
should  have  furnished  over  300,000 
soldiers,  computing  numbers  in  the 
same  proportion.  Add  these  numbers 
to  the  700,000  and  you  have  an  ap- 
proximate aggregate  of  over  a  million 
men,  not  counting  the  large  number  of 
soldiers  (probably  100,000)  furnished 
by  the  border  States  to  the  Confed- 
eracy. 

Suppose  we  try  another  method  of 
calculation.  On  the  base  of  the  im- 
posing and  beautiful  Confederate  mon- 
ument erected  at  Austin,  the  capital 
city  of  Texas,  the  Confederate  and 
Federal  enlistments  are  engraved  as 
follows : 

"Number  of  men  enlisted — Confed- 
erate Armies,  700,000;  Federal  Ar- 
mies, 2,859,132." 

An  increase  of  nearly  100,000  over 
the  official  Federal  figures,  and  also  of 
100,000  over  the  usual  Confederate 
estimates.  Again,  and  below  the 
above  inscription  on  the  same  monu- 
ment: 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


"Losses  from  all  causes — Confede- 
rate, 437,000;  Federal,  485,216." 

It  will  be  observed  that  there  is 
manifestly  an  error  upon  the  face  of 
this  enduring  record,  presuming  death 
losses  may  be  intended.  It  seems  im- 
possible that  there  should  be  a  loss  of 
437,000  Confederate  soldiers  out  of 
so  small  an  enlistment  as  700,000,  or 
a  loss  of  over  four-sevenths  of  the  en- 
tire enrolled  forces  of  the  Confede- 
racy. Upon  the  examination  of  the 
census  of  1890,  twenty-five  years  after 
the  Civil  War,  I  find  that  at  that  time, 
there  were  still  living  in  the  United 
States  432,020  Confederate  soldiers, 
leaving  out  of  the  account  the  number 
of  deaths  that  occurred  during  this 
long  interval. 

Now,  if  we  should  add  to  the  num- 
ber of  surviving  Confederate  soldiers 
in  1890  the  number  of  deaths  during 
the  war,  as  registered  on  the  Texas 
monument,  we  have  an  aggregate  of 
nearly  900,000  Confederates.  Add  to 
this  number  the  deaths  during  the  in- 
terval of  twenty-five  years,  according 
to  the  approved  American  tables  of 
death  rates,  144,000,  and  we  will  have 
over  a  million  soldiers  or  enlistments. 

Again,  referring  to  the  official  cen- 
sus of  1890.  If  there  were  then  sur- 
viving 432,000  Confederate  soldiers, 
the  American  life  tables  show  that  at 
the  close  of  the  war  in  1865  there 
must  have  been  600,000  surviving 
Confederate  soldiers,  after  all  the 
losses  of  the  war  are  deducted.  (Ac- 
cording to  the  life  tables  the  numbers 
would  be  about  575,000,  but  the  veter- 
ans of  the  war,  owing  to  their  disabil- 
ities, would  show  a  slightly  increased 
death  rate,  bringing  the  numbers  up 
to  at  least  600,000.)  How  much  more 
accurate  are  the  official  figures  of  the 
census  than  the  "approximate  esti- 
mates" and  misleading  guesses  of  the 
local  historians,  sometimes  so  sensitive 


lest  errors  might  creep  into  the  his- 
torical records. 

Let  us  take  a  third  illustration. 
According  to  the  census  of  1860  the 
eleven  seceding  States  (omitting  Mis- 
souri and  Kentucky)  had  more  than 
a  million  white  men  eligible  to  mili- 
tary duty — that  is,  between  the  ages 
of  eighteen  and  forty-five;  and,  as 
General  Grant  is  said  to  have  aptly  re- 
marked, during  the  war  the  Confede- 
rate authorities  "robbed  the  cradle  and 
the  grave"  for  soldiers  between  the 
ages  of  seventeen  and  fifty  years  or 
over,  in  their  struggle  to  maintain  the 
strength  of  their  armies!  Thus  in- 
creasing the  number  of  available  men 
to  about  1,200,000.  Owing  to  the 
South's  large  agricultural  slave  pop- 
ulation, she  was  able  to  send  to  her 
armies,  or  to  some  class  of  military 
service,  almost  her  entire  white  male 
population.  Over  200,000  youths  in 
these  States  arrived  at  the  military 
age  during  the  four  years  of  the  war. 
With  this  large  number  of  available 
soldiers  at  her  command,  does  it  seem 
just,  or  complimentary,  to  the  seced- 
ing States,  to  insist  that  only  one-half 
of  their  white  military  population  was 
willing  to  enlist  in  the  Southern 
cause  ? 

Is  it  not  more  of  a  compliment  to 
the  courage  and  patriotism  of  these 
States  to  recognize  the  fact,  so  often 
claimed  by  them,  that  nearly  their  en- 
tire white  male  population,  including 
young  and  old,  capable  of  bearing 
arms,  arose  to  resist  what  the  South 
then  regarded  as  invasion  and  coer- 
cion, rather  than  attempt  to  limit  their 
total  enlistments  and  re-enlistments  to 
the  small  number  of  six  or  seven  hun- 
dred thousand,  about  one-half  of  their 
available  military  population,  omitting 
the  large  number  of  recruits  from  the 
border  States,  which  much  more  than 
equaled  the  Federal  enlistments  in  the 
seceding  States. 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


The  State  of  Ohio,  with  a  popula- 
tion in  1860  of  about  one-third  of  the 
population  of  the  seceding  States,  ac- 
cording to  her  official  reports,  enlisted 
over  313,000  soldiers  for  long  and 
short  terms  to  maintain  the  integrity 
of  the  Union.  According  to  the  cen- 
sus Indiana  sent  over  seventy-four 
per  cent,  of  her  men  of  military  age 
into  the  war.  Can  the  eleven  seced- 
ing States  afford  to  admit  that  Ohio 
and  Indiana  were  more  patriotic  than 
the  South,  and  that  their  sons,  enlisted 
in  much  larger  proportion  than  the 
men  of  the  South,  who  were  resisting 
the  (so-called)  invasion  of  their 
homes  and  firesides?  I  think  not. 

The  theory  of  the  total  enrollment 
of  only  600,000  or  700,000  men  cer- 
tainly does  injustice  to  the  South.  It 
minimizes  its  patriotism.  It  does  in- 
justice to  the  North  in  presenting  a 
contrast  of  figures  that  has  no  real 
basis  of  fact.  Can  the  South  afford  to 
exalt  and  idealize  the  courage  of  a 
limited  number  of  its  soldiers  at  the 
expense  of  its  patriotism  or  what  it 
regarded  as  loyalty  to  the  secession 
cause?  If  there  were  only  600,000 
patriots  on  the  army  rolls,  there  must 
have  been  300,000  or  400,000  unpa- 
triotic shirks  hiding  out  in  the  woods 
somewhere.  The  theory  of  small 
numbers  cuts  both  ways.  It  places 
the  South  in  a  dilemma.  It  reminds 
me  of  the  story  of  the  old  Federal 
at  the  North,  who  talked  so  much  at 
the  family  fireside  about  how  he  had 
fought  and  how  many  rebels  he  had 
killed  in  the  war,  that  one  day  his 
little  son  said  to  him,  "I  say,  Pa,  did 
anybody  help  you  put  down  the  Re- 
bellion?" 

When  the  Confederate  rolls  are 
finally  summarized  I  think  it  will  be 
found  that  there  were  other  Southern 
patriots  who  took  a  hand  in  the  big 
war  besides  the  alleged  600,000. 


Mr.  Elaine  in  his  "Political  His- 
tory" states  that  the  armies  of  the 
South  numbered  about  1,100,000  men. 
When  the  rosters  of  the  regiments  and 
detached  forces  of  the  Confederacy 
are  complete,  as  called  for  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  War,  I  think  the  aggregate 
will  nearly  reach  Mr.  Elaine's  calcu- 
lation. General  Ainsworth,  of  the 
War  Department,  has  recently  esti- 
mated their  strength  at  about  a  million 
men,  and  Senator  Daniel,  of  Virginia, 
at  800,000. 

I  have  lived  in  the  South  nearly 
forty  years.  My  ancestry  is  mainly 
Southern,  and  1  feel  that  I  have  a 
right  to  discuss  this  subject  as  a 
Southerner,  as  well  as  from  the  stand- 
point of  an  ex-Federal  soldier.  I  have 
perhaps  become  sensitive  as  to  this 
contrast  of  figures,  but  to  my  mind  it 
gives  so  misleading  an  impression  that 
it  should  not  be  perpetuated  and  al- 
lowed to  go  down  as  history  to  the 
new  generations.  North  and  South. 
The  figures  2,700.000  or  2,800,000  and 
600,000  have  a  kind  of  five  to  one 
flavor  and  significance  quite  out  of 
harmony  with  the  Federal  army  ideas 
of  history.  They,  in  fact,  suggest  the 
arithmetical  proportions  of  that  old 
ante-bellum  myth,  or  fiction,  held  by 
an  occasional  radical  or  hot  blood  of 
the  South,  "befo'  the  wah"  that  one 
Southerner  could  take  care  of  about 
five  Yankees,  a  very  misleading 
dogma  as  it  turned  out. 

The  figures  remind  me  of  an  inci- 
dent of  the  unhappy  and  demoralizing 
days  of  reconstruction :  Judge  Rice,  a 
prominent  and  well-known  politician 
of  Alabama,  who  had  been  a  Demo- 
crat and  a  Confederate  soldier,  under- 
took to  change  front  and  run  for 
Congress  upon  the  Republican  ticket. 
When  he  delivered  his  first  campaign 
speech  his  old  Democratic  friends 
began  to  guy  him  with  questions : 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


"Say,  Jedge,  didn't  you  urge  our 
young  men  to  jine  the  Southern  army? 
Didn't  you  say  one  Southerner  could 
whip  five  Yankees?"  "Well,  perhaps 
I  did,"  the  judge  replied.  "Didn't 
you  say  right  here  in  Huntsville  that 
we  could  whip  the  damn  Yankees 
with  pop  guns  ?"  "Yes,  I  did,"  the 
judge  said,  "but  damn  it,  the  Yankees 
wouldn't  fight  us  with  pop  guns.  They 
wouldn't  fight  us  that  way.  The  ras- 
cals came  at  us  with  powder  and  shot 
— circumstances  changed." 

I  have  rarely  met  a  Southerner  who 
claimed  to  be  a  "five  to  one  hero" 
during  my  residence  at  the  South.  I 
think  the  species  has  long  since  be- 
come extinct.  We  are  all  more  or 
less  influenced  by  our  environment.  I 
have  had  some  things  to  learn  at  the 
South  and  some  to  unlearn.  My  con- 
victions as  to  the  war,  I  may  say,  have 
stuck  pretty  close  by  me,  but  I  would 
be  recreant  to  the  truth,  to  my  home, 
and  to  my  friends  at  the  South,  if  I 
had  anything  but  kindness  and  com- 
pliments to  report  ac  to  them.  The 
veterans  of  the  Southern  army  are 
among  my  best  friends.  They  are  the 
South's  best  citizens — the  peers  of  the 
best  type  of  gentlemen  to  be  found  in 
any  country,  liberal,  generous  in  sen- 
timent and  free  from  partisanship. 
They  are  looking  to  the  present  and 
the  future,  not  complaining  as  to  the 
past.  The  friendships,  the  mutual 
consideration  and  regard  of  the  sol- 
diers at  the  South,  Confederate  and 
Federal,  have  been  an  important 
factor  in  allaying  our  political  antag- 
onism and  reviving  the  spirit  of  na- 
tionality throughout  the  South.  No 
section  of  our  great  republic  has  to- 
day more  interest  or  pride  in  its  unity 
and  its  destiny  than  the  South. 

Turning  to  my  subject  again,  and 
to  the  large  official  Federal  enroll- 
ment, we  find  that  the  number  of  sol- 


diers credited  to  the  national  armies 
usually  gives  a  misleading  impression, 
owing  to  the  very  completeness  o.f  the 
official  record.  The  large  aggregate 
of  2,778,000  in  round  numbers  must 
be  carefully  analyzed  and  sifted  to  give 
a  just  estimate  of  the  available  force, 
or  of  the  fighting  strength  of  the 
Union  armies.  These  figures  include 
the  entire  enrollments  or  enlistments 
of  all  classes,  single,  double  and  treble 
during  the  four  years  of  the  war. 

As  I  have  stated,  they  include  all 
local  and  temporary  enlistments.  For 
instance :  The  First  Ohio  Infantry, 
with  which  I  entered  the  service,  en- 
listed three  times.  First  in  1861  "for 
three  months,"  again  in  1861  "for 
three  years,"  and  in  1864  "till  the  end 
of  the  war."  Thus  this  large  regiment 
is  counted  three  times  in  the  general 
enlistment.  One  hundred  and  thirty- 
six  regiments  enlisted  two  or  three 
times  during  the  war,  and  are  counted 
two  or  three  times  on  the  rolls.  Three 
hundred  regiments  entered  upon  the 
rolls  served  upon  the  border  or  in  the 
rear,  and  never  got  into  action  or  saw 
a  battle.  Nearly  400,000  enlistments 
were  for  one  year;  88,000  for  nine 
months  ;  108,000  for  three  months,  and 
over  86,000  for  one  hundred  days. 
Nearly  300,000  of  the  men  enrolled 
enlisted  just  before  the  close  of  the 
war,  too  late  to  participate  in  its  active 
campaigns  or  engagements.  One  hun- 
dred and  eighty-six  thousand  enlist- 
ments of  colored  troops  were  carried 
upon  the  rolls.  Owing  to  various 
causes  the  names  of  the  same  soldiers 
often  appear  upon  the  general  roll  four 
or  fives  times.  Every  transfer  added 
a  new  name  to  the  roll.  These  illus- 
trations enable  us  to  realize  how  mis- 
leading are  the  large  figures  and  num- 
bers usually  credited  to  the  national 
armies.  They  give  an  exaggerated  im- 
pression of  the  actual  forces.  If  every 


8        NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


enlistment,  re-enlistment  and  transfer 
of  soldiers  made  in  the  Southern 
armies  during  the  four  years  of  war 
was  counted  upon  their  rolls,  it  would 
certainly  nearly  double  any  estimate 
of  their  available  force  in  the  field. 

Mr.  Fox,  who  has  published  the 
most  complete  statistics  of  the  Federal 
forces  in  the  Civil  War,  states  that  "it 
is  doubtful  if  there  were  two  million 
individuals  actually  in  service  during 
the  war,"  on  the  Federal  side — that  is, 
for  all  long  and  short  terms  of  service. 

The  official  report  of  the  Provost 
Marshal  General  shows  the  combined 
strength  of  the  Federal  armies  at  dif- 
ferent periods  during  the  war  (deduct- 
ing absentees)  in  round  numbers  as 
follows : 

On  July  1,  1861,  the  combined  armies 
numbered  183,000. 

January  1,  1862,  the  combined  ar- 
mies numbered  527,000. 

January  1,  1863,  the  combined  ar- 
mies numbered  698,000. 

January  1,  1864,  the  combined  ar- 
mies numbered  611,000. 

March  31,  1865,  the  combined  ar- 
mies numbered  657,000. 

This  was  "the  available  force  capa- 
ble of  active  service  in  the  field,"  to 
use  Dr.  Jones'  expression  regarding 
the  Confederate  forces;  more  than 
half  of  them  were  practically  rear 
guards.  As  you  see,  the  numbers  do 
not  run  up  into  the  millions.  They 
include  the  entire  Union  forces,  at  the 
front,  in  the  rear,  in  reserve,  guarding 
cities,  bridges,  railways,  block  houses 
and  stores.  The  front  of  the  army 
line  extended  from  the  Atlantic  Ocean 
to  the  Rocky  Mountains. 

The  armies  of  the  Confederacy 
were  of  necessity  much  less  in  num- 
bers. They  had  probably  not  one- 
half  the  strength  of  the  forces  en- 
gaged upon  the  Federal  side,  perhaps 
less,  much  less  than  one-half,  but  at 
the  front  at  the  points  of  actual  con- 


tact and  conflict,  in  the  great  battles, 
owing  to  their  interior  lines,  railways, 
and  defensive  advantages,  the  South 
as  we  know  full  well,  was  able  to  bring 
equal  or  nearly  equal  forces  into  ac- 
tion. 

The  stupendous  and  appalling  task 
that  confronted  the  armies  of  the 
Union  required  a  vastly  superior 
force ;  a  task  that  might  well  have 
caused  the  patriotic  people  of  the 
North  and  border  States  to  hesitate  in 
dismay.  An  army  of  invasion  and  ag- 
gression, under  the  conditions  of  mod- 
ern warfare,  has  to  meet  and  over- 
come tremendous  odds,  as  compared 
with  the  demands  upon  an  army  of  de- 
fense. This  general  rule  as  to  offens- 
ive and  defensive  warfare  has  been 
well  recognized  ever  since  the  time 
when  Leonidas  and  his  little  band  of 
Spartans  held  back  the  hosts  of  the 
Persian  army  in  the  narrow  pass  of 
Thermopylae. 

In  the  American  Revolution,  our 
small  Colonial  forces — • 

"The  Old  Continentals, 
With   their   ragged   regimentals" — 

held  the  disciplined  armies  of  England 
at  bay  for  six  or  seven  years.  When 
the  British  ventured  to  leave  their 
ships  and  the  cities  of  the  Atlantic 
Coast,  and  march  into  the  interior, 
their  campaigns  of  invasion  soon 
ended  at  Saratoga,  King's  Mountain, 
and  Yorktown.  General  Andrew  Jack- 
son, with  a  handful  of  Tennesseeans 
and  Kentuckians,  occupying  a  strong 
defensive  position  below  New  Orleans, 
in  a  single  battle  well  nigh  destroyed 
Packingham's  large  army  of  British 
veterans. 

The  difficulties  of  an  army  of  in- 
vasion were  remarkably  illustrated  in 
the  recent  war  in  South  Africa.  Su- 
periority in  numbers  to  the  extent  of 
ten  or  twenty,  or  even  thirty  to  one, 
did  not  seem  to  bring  success  to  Brit- 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


ish  arms.  Great  Britain  sent  over 
445,000  soldiers,  according  to  recent 
official  reports,  to  fight  an  armed  force 
of  perhaps  30,000  or  40,000  Boers. 
We  know  the  English,  Scotch  High- 
landers, the  Irish,  the  Canadians  and 
Australians  made  good  soldiers.  The 
resources  of  the  British  were  appar- 
ently without  limit,  yet  this  "wretched 
little  population  of  Boers,"  as  Lord 
Salisbury  calls  them,  defied  the  power 
and  prowess  of  the  whole  British  em- 
pire for  two  or  three  years,  and  the 
final  result  was  only  humiliation  and 
partial  success. 

Our  friends,  General  John  Morgan 
and  General  Basil  Duke,  undertook  a 
little  byplay  in  the  way  of  a  campaign 
of  invasion  north  of  the  Ohio  River. 
They  were  as  gallant  and  dashing  a 
pair  of  soldiers  as  ever  led  a  charge. 
They  struck  terror  into  the  hearts  of 
the  home  guards  for  a  time,  but  their 
campaign  soon  degenerated  into  a  kind 
of  cavalry  stampede,  that  was  finally 
rounded  up  at  Columbus,  Ohio. 

When  Robert  E.  Lee,  the  great  and 
lovable  General  of  the  Confederacy, 
crossed  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  and 
marshaled  his  splendid  army  upon  the 
hills  near  Gettysburg,  only  a  few  miles 
north  of  Maryland,  how  rapidly  his 
difficulties  multiplied.  The  Army  of 
the  Potomac  had  but  recently  suffered 
repeated  disasters  upon  Virginia  soil. 
General  Meade  had  been  in  command 
only  three  days,  but  when  his  army 
became  an  army  of  defense,  upon  the 
loyal  hills  of  Pennsylvania,  General 
Lee's  army  of  invasion  was  soon  com- 
pelled to  retire  behind  the  protecting 
line  of  the  Potomac  River. 

Ah!  the  love  of  home  is  an  inspir- 
ing sentiment.  It  gets  close  to  the 
heart.  It  nerves  the  arm  of  the  de- 
fenders to  strike  hard — • 

"For  our  altars  and  our  fires, 
God  and  our  native  land." 


If  an  army  of  invasion  (so  called) 
from  the  South  could  have  fought  its 
way  northward,  and  threatened  or  at- 
tacked the  cities  and  homes  of  New 
England  or  Michigan,  they  would  have 
struck  the  same  desperate  courage  with 
which  the  South  met  that  so-called 
army  of  invasion  from  the  North  at 
Shiloh  and  Atlanta.  General  Lee  had 
to  meet  this  new  spirit  of  defense 
when  he  crossed  the  line  and  ventured 
to  invade  the  North. 

These  illustrations  show  how  im- 
possible it  is  to  measure  the  honors  or 
to  fix  the  standard  of  courage  or  man- 
hood on  either  side  of  a  great  conflict 
like  our  Civil  War.  The  disproportion 
in  numbers  lays  no  foundation  for  un- 
favorable comparison  or  contrasting 
criticism.  There  are  other  controlling 
factors  that  must  be  taken  into  ac- 
count, if  the  question  of  superiority  is 
to  be  considered,  or  a  judicial  decision 
reached  as  to  which  were  the  best 
types  of  physical  prowess  and  man- 
hood in  the  Civil  War. 

The  territory  of  the  seceding  States 
(omitting  Missouri  and  Kentucky), 
comprised  over  800,000  square  miles, 
an  area  as  great,  or  greater,  than  the 
combined  territory  of  Great  Britain 
(including  Ireland),  France,  Germany 
and  Italy.  It  had  a  white  population 
of  five  or  six  million  Americans  of  al- 
most pure  Anglo-Saxon  strain.  It  is 
the  land  of  the  Scotch-Irish  men,  the 
Puritans  of  the  South,  tough  in  fiber 
of  brain  and  body,  the  land  of  the  de- 
scendants of  the  old-time  Virginia 
aristocracy,  of  the  South  Carolina 
Hotspurs,  a  class  of  Americans  born 
and  bred  to  rule  or  fight.  Great  dis- 
tances had  to  be  fought  over,  high 
mountains  scaled,  deep  rivers  crossed, 
vast  stores  transported,  and  the  whole 
area  in  the  rear  defended.  What 
greater  example  of  courage  and  man- 
hood has  history,  ancient  or  modern, 


io       NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


furnished  than  was  shown  by  our  na- 
tional armies  in  marching  five  hun- 
dred miles  down  into  the  heart  of  the 
Confederacy,  scaling  the  high  moun- 
tains, crossing  the  deep  rivers,  push- 
ing through  forest  and  field  into  the 
territory  of  six  million  Americans  of 
our  own  blood,  the  home  of  more  than 
a  million  Confederate  soldiers,  and 
what  is  more,  staying  there,  winning 
great  victories  there,  and  finally  main- 
taining and  restoring  the  supreme  au- 
thority of  the  National  Government 
over  this  vast  Southern  section  and 
population.  There  is  no  rule  of  num- 
bers that  can  measure  such  success. 
The  very  achievement  defies  compari- 
son or  criticism. 

When  our  beloved  and  great-hearted 
President,  Abraham  Lincoln,  stated 
that  he  was  proud  to  belong  to  the 
same  race  as  the  Southern  soldiers 
who  marched  with  General  Pickett  up 
the  slopes  of  Cemetery  Hill,  at  Gettys- 
burg, he  paid  a  beautiful  and  well- 
merited  tribute  to  the  almost  match- 
less soldiers  of  General  Lee,  but  what 
veteran  of  the  armies  of  the  Cumber- 
land was  not  reminded  by  the  remark 
that  the  slopes  of  Mission  Ridge  at 
Chattanooga  were  even  steeper  than 
the  famed  heights  of  Gettysburg?  In 
the  cruel  drama  of  war,  what  more 
splendid  example  of  enduring  courage 
does  history  recall  than  was  shown 
when  Rosecrans'  army  changed  front 
and  stayed  the  storm  of  disaster  at 
Mnrfreesboro,  turning  defeat  into 
victory ;  or  when  glorious  old  "Pap 
Thomas,"  with  half  our  army  of  the 
Cumberland,  held  at  bay  from  noon 
till  night  the  entire  arrny  of  Bragg  and 
Longstreet,  far  off  upon  the  hills  of 
Northern  Georgia,  at  Chickamauga, 
nearly  four  hundred  miles  south  of 
our  base  of  supplies? 

No,  my  comrades,  there  is  no  stand- 
ard by  which  we  can  compare  the  sol- 


diers of  the  North  and  the  soldiers  of 
the  South  in  the  great  war  that  does 
not  reflect  honor  upon  both.  It  was 
a  war  between  Americans,  Anglo- 
Saxons  in  the  main,  of  the  same  gen- 
eral ancestry  and  of  the  same  inherited 
characteristics. 

The  best  lesson  of  the  Civil  War, 
and  one  that  every  section  of  our  great 
Republic  should  remember,  teaches  us 
that  there  are  no  geographical  limits 
to  American  manhood.  It  can  not  be 
sectionalized.  All  opinions  to  the  con- 
trary must  be  regarded  as  the  off- 
spring of  mere  partisanship  and  pro- 
vincialism. They  do  not  rise  to  the 
true  standard  of  the  broad  spirit  of 
Americanism.  As  one  of  our  distin- 
guished Confederates,  ex-Governor 
Porter,  of  Tennessee,  stated  at  the 
dedication  of  our  Tennessee  monu- 
ments, Confederate  and  Federal,  at 
Chickamauga,  "If  the  combatants  had 
not  already  learned  it,  they  learned  it 
upon  this  field,  that  educated  Ameri- 
cans, of  every  section  of  the  American 
Union,  were  alike  brave  in  action,  and 
that  advantages  won  by  either  re- 
sulted from  the  character  of  their 
leadership." 

In  the  conflicts  and  struggles  be- 
tween the  Puritan  and  the  Cavalier 
and  their  descendants,  many  victories 
have  been  won  and  lost,  but  the  ques- 
tion as  to  "Who  is  the  master"  is  still 
unsettled. 

In  the  words  of  the  poet  of  Scot- 
land there  are — 

"Hills  beyond  Pentlancl  and  lands  beyond 

Forth, 
Be  the  Lords   in   the  Lowlands,  there  are 

chiefs  in  the  North." 

As  Admiral  Schley  said  of  Santiago, 
"There's  glory  enough  to  go  round." 
Yes ;  and  to  spare.  We  are  proud  to 
have  him  as  our  guest  tonight.  Every 
true  soldier  honors  the  grand  Admiral 
for  his  generous  sentiment. 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES.      n 


We  won  the  honors  of  success  in  the 
Civil  War,  and  we  know  full  well  that 
\ve  shall  never  have  a  share  in  any 
other  duty  or  achievement  so  useful, 
so  honorable,  or  so  memorable ;  but  the 
Federal  soldier  must  be  cold  and  un- 
generous indeed,  whether  his  home  be 
at  the  North  or  South,  if  he  fails  to 
pay  the  tribute  of  respect  and  admira- 
tion to  the  soldiers  of  the  Confederacy, 
who  matched  deeds  with  us  through 
four  long  years,  who  with  a  narrower 
and  mistaken  loyalty,  as  we  think,  but 
with  like  sincerity,  courage  and  devo- 
tion, and  under  greater  trials  and  sac- 
rifices, fought  a  losing  fight,  clear 
through  to  the  bitter  end  of  the  great 
tragedy ;  who  lost  all  save  the  jewel 
of  an  honorable  record,  and  yet,  with 
enduring  manhood  arose  from  defeat, 
and  with  equal  courage  and  devotion 
turned  their  bronzed  faces  to  the  fu- 
ture, a  future  full  of  golden  promise, 


and  set  about  to  build  up  anew  and 
recreate  their  homes  and  country. 

And  have  they  not,  they  and  their 
sons  and  daughters,  amid  constant 
trials  and  embarrassments,  recreated 
and  rebuilt  the  South  and  brought  that 
promise  into  fruition?  Has  not  the 
South  arisen  from  the  ashes  of  war 
and  waste  into  a  splendid  prosperity? 
Activities  and  energies,  born  of  neces- 
sity and  poverty  have  stimulated  every 
avenue  of  commerce  and  developed 
her  latent  forces,  until  the  South  of 
today  is  rivaling  the  industrial  and 
commercial  prosperity  of  the  North. 
Neither  tradition  nor  partisanship  can 
stay  her  progress. 

The  New  South  has  no  interest 
apart  from  her  sisters  of  the  North 
and  West,  and  what  is  more,  she  is 
inspired  with  the  same  spirit  of  nation- 
ality and  loyalty  to  every  interest  that 
affects  our  common  country.  Her  pa- 
triotism is  as  broad  as  the  Republic. 


The  Confederate  Armies. 


To  the  Editor  of  the  Olympian: 

In  an  article  or  address  published 
in  the  last  number  of  the  Olympian, 
upon  the  "Numbers  and  Rosters  of 
the  Two  Armies  in  the  Civil  War,"  I 
endeavored  to  show  that  the  Confed- 
erate armies  were  much  larger  than 
the  estimate  generally  accepted  at  the 
South,  and  that  instead  of  having  but 
600,000  soldiers  upon  the  rolls  during 
the  four  years  of  the  Civil  War.  they 
had  from  1,000,000  to  1,100.000  sol- 
diers. I  presented  three  methods  of 
calculation  reaching  practically  the 
same  result,  in  support  of  my  views, 
as  to  these  numbers. 

Since  your  November  number  was 
issued,  my  attention  has  been  called  to 
a  Confederate  official  report,  made  to 


the  Confederate  War  Department  in 
January,  1864,  that  gives  more  direct 
and  definite  information  upon  this  sub- 
ject than  I  was  able  to  present  in  the 
November  publication. 

In  Serial  No.  129,  page  95,  of  the 
official  records  of  the  Union  and  Con- 
federate Armies,  in  the  War  Depart- 
ment at  Washington,  there  is  an  offi- 
cial report  of  Lieutenant-Colonel 
Blake,  "Superintendent  of  Special 
Registration,"  made  to  the  Bureau  of 
Conscription  of  the  Confederate  War 
Department,  at  Richmond,  Va.,  in 
January,  1864. 

The  report  contains  a  detailed  state- 
ment of  the  number  of  troops  fur- 
nished to  the  Confederate  armies  by 
the  six  States  in  his  department  of 


12       NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES. 


duty,  to  wit:  The  States  of  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Mississippi.  It 
gives  the  number  of  volunteers  and 
conscripts,  and  the  number  of  exemp- 
tions owing  to  physical  disabilities,  in 
each  of  these  States,  and  points  out 
methods  by  which  the  Confederate 
forces  can  be  increased. 

In  his  final  summary,  Lieutenant- 
Colonel  Blake  reports  that  these  six 
States  in  his  department  had  furnished 
566,456  soldiers  to  the  Confederate 
armies  up  to  January  1,  1864. 

If  the  remaining  five  Confederate 
States,  including  Tennessee,  furnished 
soldiers  to  the  Confederate  armies  in 
like  proportion  (according  to  the 
census  of  their  military  population  in 


1860-1861),  they  must  have  furnished 
416,176  soldiers. 

By  this  just  method  of  calculation, 
we  are  able  to  show,  approximately, 
that  the  eleven  Confederate  States 
sent  to  the  armies  of  the  Confederacy, 
up  to  January  1,  1864,  982,632  men. 
The  enlistments  and  conscripts  during 
the  last  fifteen  months  of  the  war 
must  have  increased  this  number  to 
much  more  than  a  million  men. 

Add  to  this  number  the  recruits  ob- 
tained from  the  border  States  (from 
90,000  to  100,000  men),  and  you  have 
about  1,100,000  soldiers,  thus  reaching 
practically  the  same  result  we  arrived 
at  by  the  three  methods  of  calcula- 
tion presented  in  my  article  in  your 
last  issue.  G.  P.  T. 


Statistics  of  Soldiers  in  Both  Armies. 

By  Gen.   Gates  P.   Thrust  on   (U.   S.   A.},  Nashville,  Tenn. 


I  notice  in  the  excellent  March  num- 
ber of  the  Confederate  Veteran  that 
you  reprint  from  the  Baltimore  Sun 
Mr.  Cassenove  G.  Lee's  ancient  Civil 
War  statistics  as  to  the  number  of 
soldiers  in  the  armies  of  the  North 
and  South.  There  is  no  historical 
foundation  whatever  for  the  statement 
made  by  him  that  the  "total  enlist- 
ments in  the  Confederate  Army"  con- 
sisted of  "six  hundred  thousand  men." 

A  much  more  distinguished  and  re- 
liable Southern  authority,  Dr.  Wood- 
row  Wilson,  of  Virginia  (now  presi- 
dent of  Princeton  College),  in  his  ad- 
mirable "History  of  the  American 
People"  states  the  number  of  Fed- 
eral and  Confederate  soldiers  in 
the  Civil  War  as  follows :  "In  the 
North  four  men  out  of  every  nine  of 


the  military  population  had  enlisted 
for  a  service  of  three  years  in  the 
field — in  all,  1,700,000  out  of  a  mili- 
tary population  of  4,600.000."  fVol- 
ume  IV,  page  267.)  And  again  (page 
267)  he  gives  the  numbers  in  the  Con- 
federate armies  as  follows :  "The  total 
military  population  of  the  South  (the 
seceding  States)  was  but  1,065,000. 
Nine  hundred  thousand  of  these  she 
drew  into  her  armies  for  at  least  three 
years  of  service,  and  before  the  war 
ended  mere  half-grown  boys  and  men 
grown  old  were  included  in  the  mus- 
ter." The  Confederate  soldiers  in  the 
border  States  were  not  included  in  Dr. 
Wilson's  statement. 

In  the  carefully  prepared  "History 
of  the  United  States,"  by  Mr.  Waddy 
Thompson,  of  Atlanta,  Ga.,  published 


*  This  article  reprinted  from  the  Confederate  Veteran. 


NUMBERS  AND  ROSTERS  OF  THE  TWO  ARMIES.      13 


in  1904,  after  its  Civil  War  chapters 
had  been  reviewed  by  that  prince  of 
gentlemen  and  soldier,  Gen.  John  B. 
Gordon,  he  slates  that  "it  is  probable 
that  the  total  number  of  enlistments 
in  the  Confederate  armies  was  nearly 
a  million."  (See  preface  and  page 
406.) 

I  am  so  fond  of  the  editor  of  the 
Confederate  Veteran  and  read  the 
magazine  with  so  much  pleasure  that 
I  am  anxious  that  it  shall  be  historic- 
ally accurate  in  its  statements. 


General  Thruston  has  been  studying 
the  statistics  of  the  two  armies  for 
years,  and  there  can  be  no  question 
of  his  absolute  sincerity  in  seeking  to 
have  the  truth  established ;  but  he  has 
been  in  the  South  so  long  that  he  must 


be  pardoned  for  pride  in  reducing  dis- 
crepancy of  numbers.  General  Thrus- 
ton is  one  of  the  best  citizens  in  the 
South,  and  none  the  less  good  for  hav- 
ing man  ied  twice  into  families  of  cul- 
tured, ardent  Southern  people.  True, 
he  simply  quotes  in  the  foregoing  from 
cordially  accepted  Southern  authors ; 
yet  the  Veteran,  while  having  due  es- 
teem for  him  and  them,  does  not  agree 
to  quite  so  great  compromise  of  the 
statistics  that  have  been  so  long  ac- 
cepted. The  Union  Army  reduced 
from  2,800,000  to  1,700,000  and  the 
Confederate  increased  from  600,000  to 
1,000,000  men  is  too  great  a  difference. 
Southern  authors  should  be  very  care- 
ful of  their  figures.  A  compromise 
from  both  sides  as  to  actual  three-year 
soldiers  might  be  nearer  the  truth. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


DO   NOT    REMOVE 
THIS   BOOK  CARDS 


University  Research  Library 


q 

ts 

m 

. 

- 

— ix- 


